Ensure equality of representation Essay

Introduction

Ashworth and Bart introduced their article by asking a critical question that inspires the mind of a reader. In their opening remarks, the authors seek to answer the question of how, apart from the usual challenges of ethnic minority, enclaves can national, international and local artifacts be well managed to ensure equality of representation.

From the article, the authors assert with vast reference to living examples that the inability of authorities to formulate policy frameworks that foster balance between stakeholder groups ignites unprecedented chaos (Hutchings, 2007).

Clearly an article should offer readers with a formidable background upon which they base their discussion. From the article, the authors begun from a well grounded review of the challenges facing local, national and international heritages in terms of management and policy issues (Ashworth and Van der Aa, 2002).

This background information enabled the authors to formulate a basis that grounded their thesis. The concept of ownership of the world’s heritage continues to witness varying opinion.

The title of the article renders a reader to prepare for a critical examination of the subject being reviewed by the authors (Ashworth and Van der Aa, 2002). This title allows a reader to ask intriguing questions aimed achieving the purpose of the article.

Therefore, the author clearly demonstrates the purpose of the article through the title. Clearly, the authors aim at generating answers to the question of ownership of heritages and the fundamental principles that must be envisioned to quell the animosity among competing groups (Hutchings, 2007).

Analysis

The discussion of the fundamental issue draws from a wide scope of reference to demonstrate how conflicts arise and failures associated with it. The authors assert with clear reference to world’s happening about how local heritages affect national and global stakeholders.

For instance, the authors cite the destruction of the largest Buddhist statues perpetrated by cultural and religious vandalism (Ashworth and Van der Aa, 2002).

According to the article, the authors find critical evidence to suggest that while local conflicts may be crucial to the existence of significant monuments, destruction of such images causes a global attention.

Although the article does not explain or offer justifications for destructions observed over the past years, the authors provide a vivid explanation of the concerns raised, reactions, and the ultimate consequences of local, national and international players (Ashworth and Van der Aa, 2002).

The clarity created by the authors helps to neutralize the effects of readers’ implied meaning of the article’s mainstream thesis. The authors set out clear aim and concerns that the article intended to address to avoid vagueness.

The clear background can help readers to develop a preliminary clue about the climax of the authors’ claims (Bean, 2011). The article asserts the position of the authors by referring to issues that seek to answer questions surrounding cultural heritage ownership and management, which is the mainstay of tourism (Hutchings, 2007).

The article has been arranged logically, and sequentially to help the reader understand the authors’ narration and claims relating to cultural heritage conflicts, events, and reactionary moves that have defined the current situation.

The article begins by detailing the genesis of the development of some of the largest cultural monuments that define the current Afghanistan.

From the article, the authors are explorative in the sense that they attempt to document historical facts that may form part of the evidence for their conclusive claims.

The article begins by placing the current destructions in their historical context to help imagine how conflicts have resulted in current global destructions.

The article affords to document how cultural neglect or avoidance has lead to misconceptions that threaten future of global heritages. The authors use these historical destructions to explain why the current situation borrows from historical injustices.

For instance, the article uses the 1669 destructions of artefacts to explain the current of heritage. They assert that where significant cultural heritages were ignored or neglected, conflicts arose (Ashworth and Van der Aa, 2002).

Despite the fact the world’s heritages are enlisted by UNESCO and its agencies, some of the monuments have not been listed either deliberately of otherwise, which has caused perceived negligence on the side of affected groups.

Therefore, the emergence of cultural and religious groups that seek to dominate others results in cultural destruction with a view to maintain the status quo. The authors have succeeded to exhibit how failures in the management of cultural heritages can lead to serious conflicts of interest.

Attempts to safeguard religious monuments such as the removal of the Islamic images and even complete destructions have sought to demonstrate the need for organized management plans.

Although the author does not offer sufficient explanation to enumerate why governments, especially the Afghan government assume that the existence of such heritages promises idol worship (Ashworth and Van der Aa, 2002).

This suggestion, however, does not seem to warrant the destructions of cultural and religious artifacts by either groups or governments under the guise of threatening national values (Knox and Marston, 1998).

After explaining the facts that surround the historical destructions of the artefacts, the authors achieved to explore some of the reactions that followed these unwarranted events.

From the article, the authors use extensive literature to structure their article with a view of remaining authoritative and relevant.

For any authorial power to draw authority and expunge any potential criticism of lacking evidence, researchers must be able to utilize strong evidence to concretize their claims (Bean, 2011).

Therefore, the authors of this article have been able to eliminate suspicions of bias and subjectivity. The article utilized most recent literatures that seek to discuss some of the issues relating to cultural, religious, and government extremist acts that have seen many artefacts destroyed.

According to the article, cultural artefacts are and should be seen as the property of the cultural groups to whom these artefacts are essential. As such, failures to allocate sufficient safeguards by governments to avert historical acts of destructions have served to justify similar acts (Knox and Marston, 1998).

Given the ongoing trend, the authors use experience to suggest that lack of commitment from relevant bodies will continue to threaten the future of local, national, and international heritages (Tunbridge, 1984).

In the concluding parts of the article, the authors allow readers to make their own judgments about what and how a world heritage means, and how it can be achieved.

Following the factual representation of the resentment from governments and contrasting religious and cultural orientations toward artefacts, the authors suggest that while heritages are elements under the propriety of individual groups, they are ultimately envisioned for the good of the whole society (Tunbridge, 1984).

Perhaps this assertion serves to answer the preliminary question that underpins the objective of the article.

It can be argued that the authors have systematically used theoretical underpinnings and logical arrangement of the facts to help derive their research solutions. That is, to answer questions as to whom heritages are owned and what should be done to maintain them.

References

Ashworth, GJ, and Van der Aa, BJM 2002, Bamyan: Whose Heritage Was It and What Should We Do About It? Current Issues in Tourism 5(5), 447-557.

Bean, JC 2011, Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Hutchings, A 2007, With Conscious Purpose: A History of Town Planning in South Australia, 2nd edition, Planning Institute of Australia South Australian Division: Adelaide.

Knox, PL, and Marston, SA 1998, Places and Regions in Global Context: Human Geography, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Ogundipe EH, and Hodgson, RE 2005, Lecture Notes on Paper Critique: Research Methodology and Statistic for Critical Paper Reading in Psychiatry, Victoria: Trafford Publishing

Tunbridge, JE, 1984, Whose heritage to conserve? Cross-cultural reflections on political dominance and urban heritage conservation, Canadian Geographer 28 (2), 171–80.